On Wednesday, February 26, 2025, Edward L. Gilbert filed a complaint for prohibition and alternative writ in the Ohio Supreme Court against Natalie R. Haupt, a judge of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. The case centers on allegations that Haupt has exercised judicial power without legal authority in an ongoing legal matter.
Gilbert, a licensed attorney residing in Summit County, initiated this action to contest the jurisdiction of Judge Haupt in a case titled Marcus Wattley, et al. v. Edward Gilbert, et al. Currently set for trial on March 7, 2025, the Wattley case involves claims against Gilbert, including defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Gilbert contends that Haupt’s actions amount to an abuse of power, warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court.
In the complaint, Gilbert asserts that Haupt has improperly continued to exercise jurisdiction over him despite a failure to comply with the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure. He argues that the Wattley plaintiffs did not properly name him as a party in their First Amended Complaint, thereby rendering the action against him a legal nullity. According to Gilbert, the omission of his name in the complaint’s caption violates Civil Rule 10(A), which mandates that all parties involved in a lawsuit be clearly identified.
Gilbert claims that the Wattley plaintiffs had previously dismissed an earlier action against him, which he argues further complicates the jurisdictional issues surrounding the current case. He alleges that Haupt’s denial of his motion to deem the action against him a nullity effectively condones an unauthorized exercise of judicial power. Gilbert emphasizes that the denial of his writ would result in significant injury, as it would force him to comply with trial proceedings despite the alleged lack of jurisdiction.
The complaint outlines a series of procedural missteps taken by the Wattley plaintiffs since the inception of their legal actions against Gilbert. It notes that the initial lawsuit was filed on July 12, 2021, and was voluntarily dismissed in January 2023. A second lawsuit was initiated on May 24, 2023, but Gilbert asserts that the First Amended Complaint filed on November 15, 2023, failed to properly identify him as a defendant, violating his rights and the rules of civil procedure.
Gilbert’s legal team contends that the omission of his name from the caption of the First Amended Complaint effectively dismissed any claims against him. They argue that the legal framework in Ohio clearly stipulates that a party must be named in the caption for the court to maintain jurisdiction over that individual. The complaint cites various Ohio Supreme Court precedents that support this interpretation, emphasizing that the civil rules are not mere technicalities but essential components of due process.
In support of his claims, Gilbert’s complaint outlines several key legal principles regarding the authority of judges and the jurisdiction of courts in Ohio. He argues that the Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that lower courts lack the discretion to ignore the explicit language of civil rules. The complaint seeks a writ of prohibition, which would prevent Judge Haupt from proceeding with the trial and from exercising any further authority over Gilbert in the Wattley case.
Gilbert’s legal counsel argues that the remedy of prohibition is appropriate in this situation because Haupt’s jurisdiction is patently lacking. They assert that Gilbert does not have an adequate remedy through the normal appellate process, as the harm he faces—potential sanctions and a judgment against him—cannot be adequately addressed after the fact.
The Ohio Supreme Court will now consider Gilbert’s complaint, which asks for an alternative writ to stay all proceedings against him until the court can issue a ruling on the matter. Additionally, Gilbert is requesting a prohibition against Haupt from continuing to assert jurisdiction over him in the Wattley case, arguing that such actions are unauthorized by law.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
